You are here

Home » Cases

Prior Cases

Miller v. Louisiana

On September 4th, 2012, CAC filed an amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court in support of the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in Miller v. Louisiana. In 2003, petitioner Corey Miller was convicted of murder in the second degree by a 10-2 jury vote. Louisiana is one of just two states that permit conviction by a non-unanimous jury. Miller, a recording artist, had been found guilty of the shooting death of a 16-year-old fan during an altercation outside a Baton Rouge nightclub.

CAC’s brief urges the Supreme Court to reaffirm that the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury requires that a criminal conviction be based on a unanimous jury verdict, and that the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to recognize that right. The brief cites constitutional text and history on both points. Founders from John Adams to James Madison understood jury unanimity to be a bulwark of liberty, as essential to the jury trial right as the right to a jury of one’s neighbors and peers. The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, which applied the guarantees of the Bill of Rights to the states, specifically mentioned the right to a jury trial as one of the fundamental rights newly protected against state infringement.

On February 19, 2013, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in the case.

Muhammad Shabazz Farrakhan, et.al., v. Christine O. Gregoire, et.al

On October 7, 2010, the en banc Ninth Circuit held, in an unsigned and flawed per curiam opinion, that “a section 2 Voting Rights Act challenge to a felon disenfranchisement law based on the operation of a state’s criminal justice system must at least show that the criminal justice system is infected by intentional discrimination or that the felon disenfranchisement law was enacted with such intent.”

National Meat Association v. Harris

On Jan. 23rd, 2012, the Supreme Court unanimously struck down a California law prohibiting the slaughter of non-ambulatory livestock, upholding a federal pre-emption challenge from the National Meat Association. The decision struck a blow against the California’s efforts to ensure safe and humane treatment of animals intended for slaughter and to states’ ability to protect public health through regulation of the food supply. CAC previously filed a brief arguing that federal law governing livestock bound for slaughter should not prevent California from choosing to excluding some livestock altogether.

Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder

Faced with the prospect of invalidating one of our nation’s most important and iconic civil rights laws – renewed in 2006 with overwhelming support across the political spectrum – the Supreme Court on June 22, 2009, backed one step away from a very steep cliff. You can read our analysis of the Supreme Court's opinion on Text & History.

Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky

On March 31, 2010, in a resounding victory for the Constitution, the Supreme Court ruled as CAC had urged, and held that the lawyer for an alien charged with a crime has a constitutional obligation to tell the client that a guilty plea carries a risk that he will be deported.

PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing

On June 23, 2011, the Supreme Court ruled, 5-4, that generic drug manufacturers may not be sued for allegedly inadequate drug labels under state failure-to-warn laws because it would be “impossible” for the generic drug manufacturers to comply with both state law and federal law. The ruling stands in sharp contrast to the Court’s decision in Wyeth v. Levine, in which the Court held that no such federal preemption exists against the manufacturers of brand-name prescription drugs.

Rent-A-Center v. Jackson

On June 21, 2010, the Supreme Court handed down a sharply divided 5-4 ruling against the plaintiff Antonio Jackson. The decision created a new rule of pleading that makes it difficult for hard-working Americans to seek justice in the federal courts to enforce their federal rights, including the right to be free of racial discrimination in employment.

Seven-Sky v. Holder

On July 5, 2011, CAC filed an amicus curiae brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, defending the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Our brief in Seven-Sky argues that, under the original meaning of both the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause, Congress acted within its constitutional authority in enacting the Act’s minimum coverage provision.

Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder (D.D.C.)

On September 21, 2011, District Judge John D. Bates – an appointee of President George W. Bush – issued a 151-page opinion thoroughly rejecting Shelby County’s challenge to the Voting Right's Act’s preclearance requirement. In his opinion, Judge Bates echoed arguments made by CAC in our brief, recognizing “the preeminent constitutional role of Congress under the Fifteenth Amendment to determine the legislation needed to enforce it.”

Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, et al.

On June 17, 2010, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the plaintiff property owners’ “judicial takings” claim against the Florida Department of Environmental Protection as meritless, just as CAC and the State and Local Legal Center had urged in our brief in the case on behalf of state and local government organizations..

Pages

more